5 ms·

> a crime and punishment issue, but rather one of public health Not disagreeing with anything you said, just providing a thought. Common opinion dictates that

by javert 12y ago

> a crime and punishment issue, but rather one of public health Not disagreeing with anything you said, just providing a thought. Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. If you take it as a principle (as I do) that we need sepration of state and public health (as with church, as with education), it has interesting implications. Update: Most glaring example is Obamacare. You have to pay a fine (punishment) if you don't get insurance and it imposes massive burdens on doctors. I am only adding this because I got massively downvoted. I guess people didn't understand that what I said was just a matter of fact. Our society does support the idea that public health is actionable on a "crime and punishment" level and in general that is still the modus operandi.

GuiA 12y ago
> in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. Mh? It isn't illegal to get an STD, and you don't get punished for having an STD; yet our society actively tries to limit STD transmission. Not sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for/against.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread disease.
  - tekromancr 12y ago
    No, mate. It's illegal because bible. Those are justifications. For example, you are far less likely to transmitted diseases by sucking cock, but under sodomy laws, it's a crime.
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      Sure, it's illegal because Bible, but my take is, it's wrong in the Bible for rational reasons. The only thing is, they were rational for the time and place they were created in. Many of the rules various religions teach seem nonsensical, backward and barbaric to us today, but if you look at them through the lens of the context in which they were written, there's often a kernel of reason in them. Case in point, sodomy and fornication may have been considered wrong because they spread of diseases. Many of the diseases we can treat easily today were probably debilitating and fatal back then, and they imposed a cost that society then could not bear. Another example, adultery: most of the animal kingdom has no concept of marriage, but a desperately poor society may not be able to tolerate any bad blood brewed by adultery. When your primary resources are the productive youth of your society, you'd prefer them to be united in their toils (be it farming hunting of wars) rather than killing each other over petty jealousies. Some parts of Islam seem overly brutal to us, but (AFAIK) it was forged in a society that mostly lived an unbelievably harsh tribal life in the desert. Consider theft in that context. Even a minor theft could cause somebody to lose their life, and hence thievery in general was deterred with very harsh punishment. Sure, some rules were made purely for the benefit of a select few, but that doesn't affect the point that many others were reasonable for their time. The problem with religion is that people still assume these rules as God's (with a capital 'G') own truth when they no longer make any sense in the modern day.
      - tammer 12y ago
        The "ancient public health initiative" explanation of religious taboos is a specious argument. Yes, there are arguments to prove eating pork in the biblical middle-east was more dangerous than eating other kinds of meat. But to say that some wise and beneficent scholars recognized this fact implies there were prototype longitudinal surveys coupled with an ancient germ-theory of disease. It also doesn't explain the dozens of other prohibitions that have no relation to public health. I suggest the book Purity and Danger[1] by Mary Douglas. She's a structural anthropologist who posits these religious taboos as extensions of the symbology dominant at the time. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-Routledge/dp/0415289955 http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-Routl...
  - adventured 12y ago
    Such things are only ever made illegal when there's someone else that wishes to make life on earth a living hell to promote the sales pitch of a better life after death.
- benjymau5 12y ago
  AFAIK in a lot of places knowingly transmitting an STD is a illegal. I guess the key part is 'knowingly.'
  - Crito 12y ago
    Knowingly, and presumably without the consent of the receiving party. I haven't read those laws, but I can only assume that it is not illegal to have and STD and have sex with somebody if they are fully informed and accept the risk. Those laws are almost certainly more about consent than limiting the spread of disease.
- joshuaxls 12y ago
  Coincidentally, California issued an arrest warrant today for a man with TB who refuses to stay in a hospital. The state does have the power to make personal health issues criminal. http://www.hngn.com/articles/37165/20140725/homeless-man-with-tuberculosis-on-the-loose-according-to-california-police.htm http://www.hngn.com/articles/37165/20140725/homeless-man-wit...
gizmo686 12y ago
I don't understand what you are trying to say. The state can take care of public health issues without making them into issues of crime and punishment. There is an entire government agency (CDC) devoted to just that.
DangerousPie 12y ago
The state has methods at its disposal other than crime an punishment. For example, they can try to influence the behavior of their citizens by education or taxation, like they do with cigarettes or alcohol.
- coob 12y ago
  I think the argument made in retort would go along the lines of - What happens if you don't pay the tax, or don't turn up to school? All over a governments abilities boil down in their extreme to their monopoly on violence.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    For the nth time, the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the right to self-defense. Even insofar as the state does have coercive powers, it does not follow that all state activity is based on coercion, any more than an individual's legal capacity for violence means that its the locus of their life's activities.
  - djur 12y ago
    This is a common belief among libertarians, but it doesn't reflect how governments actually work. Governments that have to rely on physical force tend to be unstable, very small, or limited in their ability to effect policies. Most people's decisions whether to follow or disobey laws are more heavily influenced by social pressures and conventions than the fear of imprisonment or physical assault by cops. Incidentally, what usually happens when you don't pay taxes is you get nasty letters. If you have wages they might be garnished, and if you have assets they may be seized. Employers comply with garnishments and banks comply with seizures mostly for social reasons, not because of a fear that they will be imprisoned or shot for selflessly protecting a deadbeat.
    - baddox 12y ago
      That comment is very much in need of some sort of citation. I find it extremely hard to believe that a significant portion of people pay taxes because of social pressure and convention rather than the fear of punishment. A reasonable thought experiment is to imagine what would happen if the government convincingly announced that it would no longer perform any physical enforcement of any laws. I for one wouldn't immediately go out and murder or burgle anyone, because my reasons for not doing those things are firstly my ethical intuition that such an act is wrong and secondly the fact that people are likely to fight back. But you better believe that I would immediately disregard some laws, particularly ones prohibiting so-called victimless crimes. I would make essentially the exact opposite argument as you. I think that most people believe that government is not primarily in power because of violence, I think they're wrong, and I think history (ancient to modern) makes it extremely clear that they're wrong.
adventured 12y ago
"Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment." Your logic is incorrect. The vast majority of the time in fact, public health is absolutely not an issue of crime and punishment.
iSnow 12y ago
>Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. What's with the libertarians fondness for hyperbole? In common opinion, public health if firstly seen as a service the society provides in developed countries, especially if viewed in contrast with countries that do not have a functioning government. Secondly it is seen as based on rules. Yes, if you break every rule this amounts to crime down the road, but common belief in post-adolescents is that your precious personality is not constantly raped if you follow rules. >Update: Most glaring example is Obamacare. To most Europeans, Obamacare is simply the US catching up with other industrialized countries. I doubt anyone here except for a sub-percent minority sees this as the state stealing from its citizens by forcing them at gunpoint to pay up.

by javert 12y ago

GuiA 12y ago

> in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. Mh? It isn't illegal to get an STD, and you don't get punished for having an STD; yet our society actively tries to limit STD transmission. Not sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for/against.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread disease.
- tekromancr 12y ago
  No, mate. It's illegal because bible. Those are justifications. For example, you are far less likely to transmitted diseases by sucking cock, but under sodomy laws, it's a crime.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    Sure, it's illegal because Bible, but my take is, it's wrong in the Bible for rational reasons. The only thing is, they were rational for the time and place they were created in. Many of the rules various religions teach seem nonsensical, backward and barbaric to us today, but if you look at them through the lens of the context in which they were written, there's often a kernel of reason in them. Case in point, sodomy and fornication may have been considered wrong because they spread of diseases. Many of the diseases we can treat easily today were probably debilitating and fatal back then, and they imposed a cost that society then could not bear. Another example, adultery: most of the animal kingdom has no concept of marriage, but a desperately poor society may not be able to tolerate any bad blood brewed by adultery. When your primary resources are the productive youth of your society, you'd prefer them to be united in their toils (be it farming hunting of wars) rather than killing each other over petty jealousies. Some parts of Islam seem overly brutal to us, but (AFAIK) it was forged in a society that mostly lived an unbelievably harsh tribal life in the desert. Consider theft in that context. Even a minor theft could cause somebody to lose their life, and hence thievery in general was deterred with very harsh punishment. Sure, some rules were made purely for the benefit of a select few, but that doesn't affect the point that many others were reasonable for their time. The problem with religion is that people still assume these rules as God's (with a capital 'G') own truth when they no longer make any sense in the modern day.
    - tammer 12y ago
      The "ancient public health initiative" explanation of religious taboos is a specious argument. Yes, there are arguments to prove eating pork in the biblical middle-east was more dangerous than eating other kinds of meat. But to say that some wise and beneficent scholars recognized this fact implies there were prototype longitudinal surveys coupled with an ancient germ-theory of disease. It also doesn't explain the dozens of other prohibitions that have no relation to public health. I suggest the book Purity and Danger[1] by Mary Douglas. She's a structural anthropologist who posits these religious taboos as extensions of the symbology dominant at the time. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-Routledge/dp/0415289955 http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-Routl...
- adventured 12y ago
  Such things are only ever made illegal when there's someone else that wishes to make life on earth a living hell to promote the sales pitch of a better life after death.
benjymau5 12y ago
AFAIK in a lot of places knowingly transmitting an STD is a illegal. I guess the key part is 'knowingly.'
- Crito 12y ago
  Knowingly, and presumably without the consent of the receiving party. I haven't read those laws, but I can only assume that it is not illegal to have and STD and have sex with somebody if they are fully informed and accept the risk. Those laws are almost certainly more about consent than limiting the spread of disease.
joshuaxls 12y ago
Coincidentally, California issued an arrest warrant today for a man with TB who refuses to stay in a hospital. The state does have the power to make personal health issues criminal. http://www.hngn.com/articles/37165/20140725/homeless-man-with-tuberculosis-on-the-loose-according-to-california-police.htm http://www.hngn.com/articles/37165/20140725/homeless-man-wit...

gizmo686 12y ago

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The state can take care of public health issues without making them into issues of crime and punishment. There is an entire government agency (CDC) devoted to just that.

DangerousPie 12y ago

The state has methods at its disposal other than crime an punishment. For example, they can try to influence the behavior of their citizens by education or taxation, like they do with cigarettes or alcohol.

coob 12y ago
I think the argument made in retort would go along the lines of - What happens if you don't pay the tax, or don't turn up to school? All over a governments abilities boil down in their extreme to their monopoly on violence.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  For the nth time, the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, otherwise there'd be no such thing as the right to self-defense. Even insofar as the state does have coercive powers, it does not follow that all state activity is based on coercion, any more than an individual's legal capacity for violence means that its the locus of their life's activities.
- djur 12y ago
  This is a common belief among libertarians, but it doesn't reflect how governments actually work. Governments that have to rely on physical force tend to be unstable, very small, or limited in their ability to effect policies. Most people's decisions whether to follow or disobey laws are more heavily influenced by social pressures and conventions than the fear of imprisonment or physical assault by cops. Incidentally, what usually happens when you don't pay taxes is you get nasty letters. If you have wages they might be garnished, and if you have assets they may be seized. Employers comply with garnishments and banks comply with seizures mostly for social reasons, not because of a fear that they will be imprisoned or shot for selflessly protecting a deadbeat.
  - baddox 12y ago
    That comment is very much in need of some sort of citation. I find it extremely hard to believe that a significant portion of people pay taxes because of social pressure and convention rather than the fear of punishment. A reasonable thought experiment is to imagine what would happen if the government convincingly announced that it would no longer perform any physical enforcement of any laws. I for one wouldn't immediately go out and murder or burgle anyone, because my reasons for not doing those things are firstly my ethical intuition that such an act is wrong and secondly the fact that people are likely to fight back. But you better believe that I would immediately disregard some laws, particularly ones prohibiting so-called victimless crimes. I would make essentially the exact opposite argument as you. I think that most people believe that government is not primarily in power because of violence, I think they're wrong, and I think history (ancient to modern) makes it extremely clear that they're wrong.

adventured 12y ago

"Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment." Your logic is incorrect. The vast majority of the time in fact, public health is absolutely not an issue of crime and punishment.

iSnow 12y ago

>Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. What's with the libertarians fondness for hyperbole? In common opinion, public health if firstly seen as a service the society provides in developed countries, especially if viewed in contrast with countries that do not have a functioning government. Secondly it is seen as based on rules. Yes, if you break every rule this amounts to crime down the road, but common belief in post-adolescents is that your precious personality is not constantly raped if you follow rules. >Update: Most glaring example is Obamacare. To most Europeans, Obamacare is simply the US catching up with other industrialized countries. I doubt anyone here except for a sub-percent minority sees this as the state stealing from its citizens by forcing them at gunpoint to pay up.